[Answered] Critically examine the differences between wildlife ‘capture’ and ‘rescue’ in India. Discuss the implications of these practices on conservation efforts and animal welfare.

It can be difficult to distinguish between “wildlife capture” and “rescue” in India, but doing so is necessary for efficient conservation and the welfare of the animals. The goal of both capture and rescue operations is to resolve conflicts between humans and wildlife, but they differ greatly in their approaches, goals, and results, which has a big impact on both human populations and wildlife populations.

Capture vs. Rescue: What’s the Difference?

• Animal Welfare: Depending on the methods used, wildlife capture can potentially cause stress, injury, or even death to the captured animals. It is crucial to ensure that capture techniques are humane and minimize harm to the individuals involved. The primary focus of wildlife rescue is to alleviate suffering and promote the well-being of individual animals. This involves providing medical care, proper nutrition, and a suitable environment for recovery and rehabilitation.
• Purpose: Wildlife capture typically involves capturing animals for various purposes such as scientific research, relocation, rehabilitation, or captivity (zoos, wildlife sanctuaries, etc.). Wildlife rescue primarily aims to save individual animals in distress or danger, such as those injured, orphaned, trapped, or affected by human activities (e.g., poaching, habitat destruction).

Implications of these practices on conservation efforts

• Conservation Impact: The indiscriminate capture of wildlife can undermine conservation efforts by disrupting ecosystems and exacerbating conflicts. In contrast, targeted rescue operations that prioritize non-lethal solutions and habitat restoration contribute to sustainable conservation practices.
• Animal Welfare: Proper handling and care are essential in both capture and rescue operations to minimize stress and injury to animals. Wildlife rescue efforts should prioritize the well-being of individual animals, ensuring their safe return to their natural habitats whenever possible.
• Unfamiliarity: It can be harmful to release captured animals into new territory, especially if they have been transported a great distance. Their inability to obtain food, water, and shelter may make them more susceptible to starvation or predators.
• Stress and Trauma: Even for healthy animals, the act of being captured can be upsetting and harmful. Eg, for leopards, elephants & snakes.

Conclusion

The resolution of human-wildlife conflicts in India requires proactive, ethical measures prioritizing the welfare of animals and people. Promising approaches, such as early warning systems and public education, are being tested by the Karnataka Forest Department, but more resources and research are needed for effective implementation.